Activists and members of the civil society often brand themselves as upholders of secularism. Actually, what they really do is propagate a concept that is labeled secularism but in reality is a process of modifying our lifestyles to conform with the laws and practices of two of the world's largest religions. In other words, secularism, as practiced in India is actually soft or creeping conformation to religious concepts of religious minorities.

The Supreme Court of India in a judgement (Page 19) stated: "The real meaning of secularism in the language of Gandhi is Sarva-Dharma-Samabhav meaning equal treatment and respect for all religions, but we have misunderstood the meaning of secularism as sarva-dharma-sam-abhav meaning negation of all religions." My question to all self styled secularists is this: do you agree with what the SC of India has stated on secularism citing the views of father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, someone often invoked by secularists (not to be confused for with secular person) to self certify their credentials? I bet they won't. They like it custom made. So what form do they like? Has to be one of the three ways (that I can think of) in which we can interpret secularism in India . Let's look at each interpretation individually:

1. Secularism means Sarva Dharma Samabhav: Will our religious minorities agree to give equal respect to all religions? This means Muslims would have to accept that Allah is not the only God, likewise for the Christians. Muslims and Christians are likely to reject this idea of secularism even if it amounts to rejecting a judgement passed by the SC because respecting "false gods" is blasphemous. In fact, it amounts to "shirk" in Islam and according to Islamic scholar Javed Ghamidi, is the only unpardonable sin in Islam.

2. Secularism means indifference to all religions: This stand would require a permanent end to all religion based quotas, freebies, and outrageous notions like "Muslims have first right on our natural resources". Will Muslims accept an end to all freebies including the Haj subsidy? Will Christians in secular Mumbai agree to not overrule SC orders like they did here? Will Muslims in secular Delhi promise to not overrule HC orders like they did here? Will MP Asaduddin Owaisi stop coercing people to convert to Islam (at least not during prime time TV debates on NDTV)? In short, will religious minorities accept that law of the land would always overrule their respective religious laws and hence mean an end to religious personal laws? We know what the answers will be like, don't we? That leaves us with the most preferred option.

3. Secularism means "To each ( religious group) its own": This is the form of secularism that is commonly practiced in India . Unfortunately, this concept is not secularism but conforming to religious concepts of minorities because it complies with what is stated in the Quran (but strangely never implemented in Islamic countries). The Quran allegedly states "tumhe tumhara din mubaraq, hamein hamara" which translates into "to each his own". Very convenient isn't it? It allows apologists of Islam to defend Muslim personal laws, laws that often contradict common sense and basic humanity. Christian missionaries love it too (but not in their own backyards though) because it gives them a free hand to convert unsuspecting natives with impunity under the protective shield called minority rights.

Having listed the three definitions of secularism, I would like to pose this question to the religious minorities of India . Which form of secularism do you really want, 1 or 2? You can't pick 3 because conforming to religious concepts of minorities is not secularism. This farcical definition that Islamists want to propagate is not acceptable to me and other law abiding dharmic citizens of this country.

Related posts

A fundamental mistake many people make is falsely equating dharma with religion. Totalitarian ideologies that espouse my-way-or-the-highway dogma are best described as adharma. In the context of this post, you could have said that the SC ruling calls for mutual respect between dharmic and non-dharmic traditions. Otherwise, well argued.

Anonymous

muslims shud be governed by their shariat law.Present Muslim personal law is inadequate 2 deal with them.theys hould be covered by shariat law and the crminlas shud be dealt with harshest punishment awrded in all islamic countries

http://twitter.com/ganpat73 munusamy ganapathy

secularism is meant for the state/govt apparatus consisting of legislature,judiciary,armed forces,bureacracy and media personnel to an extent and not for the entire population.we cannot force the public to be secular and marry irrespective of his caste/religion etc.
the state has no role in asking a christian or muslim to beleive all gods as the first option defines secularism.the first option defenitely means the head of the state /judge/district collector to light a oil lamp or wearing a mullah cap when attending respective functions which is in practise.this is the secularism in practise in our country.a sikh army general says he is more a maratha than a sikh since he was commanding a maratha battalion.he is expected to follow naga customs and become a naga when posted in a naga unit. a parsi chief justice will be lighting a lamp to start a new branch and abdul kalaam singing christmas carols with children during christmas.the same is expected from all and is practised by most except the occasional refusals to wear mullah caps,criticizing hindu festivals karunanidhi style,protests against lady collector in sabarimala etc.

the second option is the one followed in france and there too affirmative actions or priorities for deprived children,people exist.quota is given on caste basis and religion based reservation is not given in this country till date.vangujjars in kashmir or sayeeds from lakswadeep are scheduled tribals for decades.the same with obc muslims in several states. the funny situation exists only with muslim or christian dalits who are denied quota.

haj subsidy is peanuts compared to the amounts spent on kumbhmela(one of the reasons for the uttarkhand CM in losing his chair) ,free trains during religious festivals etc. no one is against chardam subsidy(travel to kedarnath,badrinath,yamunotri,gangothri)but will cause riots if the numbers are restricted as its done with haj.the amount spent by the govt in laying down and maintaining roads for the sake of temple visits is in hundreds of crores.

http://twitter.com/sanj_ay sanjay

It’s ridiculous to say that Secularism is meant for govt apparatus and not for people. It’s the people who adopted and enacted the constitution consisting of Secularism among others, the preamble of which starts with the words “We The People”. It is up to the people themselves to decide whether they want it to be followed in principle by all as per individual discretion or otherwise. As things stand, different people would agree to different form of secularism as brought out by the author. Having adopted Secularism in their constitution, it is now for the people to define it so that there be no ambiguity.

Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries;

the principle that the state has no religion and there is no state religion;persons elected to its legislative, nominated to official functions
or in the administration(s) and person nominated in the judiciary cannot
hold religious beliefs in their function but have to keep their religious beliefs exclusively for their private life secularism doesnt mean that muslims and christians should have the photos of krishna and shiv in their houses as the author implies in his first choice.
the second choice again deals with public life and the state has no role in a woman wearing purdah within her house.it just wants to prohibit its use while working as administrator,doctor,lawyer,teacher etc and while moving in public.i am all for the second one but we are a country where we dont have a uniform military code or military uniform code as sikhs have special privileges to maintain their religious looks even in uniform.it may take decades but we will slowly progress towards the second choice.

http://twitter.com/sanj_ay sanjay

Since we can’t have religious traditions and laws to prevail over the constitution, so the third option is definitely out, among the first two options if it is the second option that we chose to go with, that (loosely translated) of separation of state and religion, which is generally accepted definition by the west, then it makes no sense to have personal laws with secularism in the constitution, since some elements of the personal laws are here to stay, can’t do much about that at present, so we are left with the first option that was defined by the SC, treating all religions as equal.

Anonymous

hi muhammad ghazni,

you dont you stop giving your definitions. if you want to write an article do so- Trisool has stated the options clearly – so stop this masquerade.

if you dont like it, dont read it

Anonymous

i am not sure if you are “muhammad ghazni” masquerading as munuswamy ganapathi. Trishool has clearly stated the options with proper definitions. If you are minority choose the one you would advocate. If you are not a minority why dont you just try to appreciate the article rather than try to give your twist which actually sounds pretty ludicrous. good word Trishool- yu have stated very clearly the flaws that exist in the brand of secularism that is followed in india

http://twitter.com/AnshumanSunny Anshuman Kumar

look .there is a difference between special trains and free trains.update urself.

http://twitter.com/AnshumanSunny Anshuman Kumar

another point..stop lying abt money spent on roads leading to temples.govt does nthng basically in most cases.thousands of temples have no proper approach roads an whatever money is spent..generally its the temple trusts

http://twitter.com/ganpat73 munusamy ganapathy

i have been to badrinath several times.it requires quiet a bit of manpower and money to maintain the roads and every year kilometers of roads gets washed away during landslides.the same with gangothri and yamunothri. i am not against this but just wanted to point out the money spent. there are thousands of tribal villages without motorable roads and the main reason for motorable roads to these places are courtesy temples.
haj subsidy is reduced airfare given to airindia a public sector company for taking passengers to mecca .the total number of seats are limited and a govt appointed company decides the pilgrims.the helicopter service to kedarnath,badrinath,vaisnodevi temple in jammu,yamunothri,gangothri are all subsidised and run losses in crores.they just dont use the word chardham subsidy.
the same with travel to northeastern states of sikkim,mizoram,tripura,manipur and the airfares are subsidised in that sector too.
the government builds free shelters for kumbhmela spending several crores.thousands of armed forces for employed for amarnath yatra and the entire yatra expenses are grossly subsidised.the real cost will come to several lakhs if the admin costs are calculated.
haj travel is also not free but subsidised and chances of free air travel is impossible unlike free train travel and only a fool will ask for tickets from pilgrims travelling in thousands in those trains.the railways counts it as losses and doesnt run those for profit.

http://twitter.com/sanj_ay sanjay

Tourism to Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri and Yamunotri is not only a major source of income for Uttarakhand but also creates employment, so it makes economic sense to facilitate tourism by building roads to these places, moreover the improved roads not only helps tourists reach there comfortably but also helps the people residing in the villages there that are otherwise remote.

Air Deccan that runs helicopter service to Vashnodevi and elsewhere is a private enterprise, even if they make a loss it is not public money. Air subsidy for Northeast is to make air service viable in that sector, by no stretch can it be compared with Haj Subsidy.

Security provided at places where large number of people gather is perfectly legitimate, safety & security of citizens is the first duty of the establishment, SFs are not there to add to the comfort of the people. In addition, a part of donations made by people in Hindu temples goes to govt exchequer. Govt should have no business in taking what goes into the donation boxes and offerings made by people to gods. Despite taking a share of Temple earnings Govt still doesn’t provide even basic facilities like security as was seen in the recent stampede at Sabarimala.

pawan hans corporation which runs the helicopter services is owned 51%by GOI and 49% by ONGC.a pvt concern prabhadam too operates to a limited extent in the sector as a service incurring losses.its a 5000 crore company in several fields and does this service at subsidised rates.air deccan has nothing to do with helicopter services to kedarnath.

i am all for improved roads and wish either kedarnath or badrinath was in the hills of manipur or mizoram which would have defenitely helped the mainland get actively involved and integrated with northeast.amarnath yatra or kailash mansorover yatra are unaffordable to many and i am all for more subsidy to see these pilgrimage places.

we are following the equal respect to all religions secularism and govt spending for religious festivals,areas etc exist.there are lakhs of temples,masjids,churches on govt land built as encroachments and nothing is done to remove them except the rare ones getting caught in expansion projects.

http://twitter.com/sanj_ay sanjay

You are conspicuously silent on the Govt taking a share of Temple donations and offerings and yet not providing basic services like security/crowd management that leads to frequent stampedes even at important places like Sabarimala. If govt thinks they have a right to temple’s earnings, they should have some obligations as well, it can’t have it’s cake and eat it too.

Govt has built special terminal at least in Hyderabad Airport for Haj. The special trains that are run for Hindu pilgrimages where you assume that quite a few people don’t buy tickets and are ignored by TTEs never mind the cattle class stands nowhere in comparison.

http://twitter.com/ganpat73 munusamy ganapathy

the govt having a role in the temple is due to the demand by hindus.i have written here previously on how my family too got VIP treatment and saw rare articles,statues because of my relative being an EO of a temple.the traditional rights in a hindu temple are restricted to a few communities and families and hence the support for the intervention of the government which gives representation to all.
i have no objection if a all representative hindu body is formed to regulate the resources of all the temples in the country with adequate reservation for all sections.Are the hindu organisations fighting for it. they just want the government to layoff and the temples to return back to the domination of certain families,castes.
coming to special terminal at hyderabad,all the helipads/airports in the pilgrimage sites are built and maintained at the cost of several crores and run in losses.when S D sharma was the president and VP for 10 years he visited tirupathi every month(120 times)and the expenditure for every visit was calculated at 3 crores in 90s for every visit.
the current visit by pratibha patil with her family will also be not less than some crores.we practise the equal respect for all religions form of govt and the christians have started demanding subsidy for jerusalem visits and certain political parties have promised them.why cant the hindus demand similar subsidised air travel to the temple in cambodia.we are not having a french type of secularism and hence the demand to stop certain subsidies is not the correct approach.
some state governements spend money on rehabilitation of old cows and have given several crores to do research on cow urine based on religious beleifs.is it any different from religion based air concession to pilgrimage travel

http://twitter.com/sanj_ay sanjay

When Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HRCE) Act of 1951 was enacted, Secularism was not in the constitution and government appointed managers to the boards of Hindu temples in the name of better administration. However, when secularism was later inserted into the constitution why was the same autonomy given to other religions not extended to Hinduism now that we are Secular? Never the less, now that the govt takes a share of temple earnings doesn’t it mean that Hindus have “earned” those facilities provided for pilgrims like shelters & roads including subsidies if any. If the President availed the perks given to him for frequent pilgrimages that ran into crores that’s his or her call, how is the entire Hindu community responsible?

When we talk of equality of religion, why not demand it’s implementation as well, like equal autonomy and equal share to the exchequer as well. We can’t be talking equality and practicing inequality.

http://twitter.com/prashanthkpp Prashanth K.P.

Appears your comparison between hajj subsidy being peanuts against expenses on Kumbhmela is premature perhaps based more on heresay than factual. The per head cost to the exchequer for a Muslim on Hajj is approximately Rs. 48,000/- . This incurrence is every year with an increase in the number of people becoming eligible. The cost of Kumbhmela becomes insignificant since it is a ‘once in 12 years mela’ where other than for travel provided from just one state, all the other costs are borne by the pilgrim themselves. The estimated cost for the 2013 Kumbhmela is Rs 68 Million. This looks peanuts in comparison to the yearly humongous encumbrance Hajj pilgrimage costs the exchequer.

With regard to kedarnath, badrinath etc.. what is the number of pilgrims undertaking it in comparison with Hajj? Moreover, the substandard facilities provided enroute is less said the better. You have first hand experience yourself, isn’t it? Infrastructural costs??? that can not be attached to a temple visit. That road is an essential necessity regardless of the temple. That should be considered as part of the overall infrastructural development the Country is vying to improve.

http://twitter.com/prashanthkpp Prashanth K.P.

Great post. It is needless to say that the world ‘secularism’ is nothing than an adjective manifested with minority appeasement and minority vote bank. No other description fits this word in any way. Basically a Congress invention to remain in power and sustain it using tactical employment of this word on an “as an when required” basis.

Secularism, in the way it is perceived and practiced in India, is a potential threat to the fundamentals of our cultural heritage and co-existence.

JAI HIND!

http://twitter.com/Krishnara R.A.Krishna

Wonderful analysis! But the fundamental mistake we make is in equating secularism to Sarva Dharma Samabhava. That it is not. Secularism is actually the second alternative. It is what the French call laique or total divorce of the state from religion. This would be totally unacceptable to religious minorities in India.

India is the most accepting society in the world, because of the Hindu ethos that is open source and can accept even thoughts that are against God. No other society is like Hindu society. I live in a more liberal Arab country but know what limits exist and have to respect them. Unfortunately, that position does not exist in India and Hindus and their tradition are abused in the vilest terms by sickular Hindus and minorities as well. Certain boundaries need to be laid down, but when the fence is bent on eating the crop, there really is little hope.

(2) The SC judgment does not mean everyone should BELIEVE in the others’s religion, but RESPECT other’s religion
That is exactly what Muslims also do as well
Muslim scholars even before independance had passed a fatwa saying that Cows should not be slaughtered not because they were not allowed but because we should show respect to Hindu beliefs
And that is repeated even todayhttp://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2603964.ece